Eos has just published the results of a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. The graph below shows the results for this question:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say:

While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the
survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions
on global warming theory.

I’m guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said “no”.

The difference between the opinion of the general public and the scientists is striking. For comparison, despite the ongoing efforts of right-wing pundits here, 80% of Australians answered “yes” to a similar question.

James Annan is a little peeved, because last year Eos refused to publish the results of his poll on the basis that Eos did not publish the results of opinion polls. I think it is good that they have changed their policy, but of course they should have published the results of the other poll last year.

My thanks to reader MarkG for sending me a copy of the Doran and Zimmermann article.

Update: Here are links to the EOS article and the full report on the survey. (From Doran’s home page.)


  1. #1 sod
    April 16, 2009

    Please show me the location of temperature monitoring stations (going back 120 years) in Africa, Russia, China, Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, Atlantic Ocean, Asia …………. And – where is the data from these stations?

    you might want to reread what Jeff wrote above. he did NOT claim, that there was data from the middle of the atlantic in 1880.

    Michael, your original claim was:

    Not even the most advanced Met services in the most advanced countries have data of 1/1000 of that resolution. 100 years ago they had a fraction of that.

    well, it is obvious that most developted nations have enough data to fill a 100km grid. your cliam was simply stupid.

    within minutes, i could replicate what you said could not be done, with a slightly bigger grid. (more like a factor 10 than 1000 though..)

    you can use the data from the GISS site to make the map that Jeff described above: take the first decade that has data for each square as base temperature. the map will turn red.

    again, please make your posts represent your resume. they should sound slightly educated.

  2. #2 Lee
    April 16, 2009

    “Such eruptions pour copious quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ”
    How much is “copious?” You did after all say at the end of that rant “Would someone please give me quantitive arguments…” So how much CO2 does such eruptions release, and how does that compare to current anthropogenic emissions? Quantitate it.

    “Receding ice in Greenland is exposing Viking farming sites where enough grass grew to support grazing animals. ”
    Carter, you just disqualified yourself from serious consideration. That statement is a staple of the denialists – and it simply is not true. One site, one farm (not plural) was covered by sand (not ice). It was a functioning farm, and it was cold enough when it was covered that the sand froze into permafrost rapidly enough to preserve organic remains – including sheep poop. It was uncovered when the sand partially thawed and was eroded away (not by receding ice) and the thawing and erosion of the covering sand is, if anything, evidence that it is now warmer than when it was covered.

    Carter, when you make claims that are that easy to fact check, and that false, and you make it in the context of claiming expertise, it simply disqualifies you from serious consideration.

    BTW, many of the Greenland farms to day are on the same sites as old viking farms. Modern grass farmers are suddenly finding over the last decade that they are able to make 2, sometimes 3, hay cuts from a field in a season. This was unheard of in the viking records. Simply put, Greenland is warmer now than when the vikings were there – and the vikings colonized at a particularly warm period in Greenland history.

  3. #3 Michael Carter
    April 17, 2009

    Please direct me to the sources (within in most developed countries) of concrete temperature data within a 100 km grid. The data must cover a realistic time frame, such that reasonable assumptions may be made on a real temperature change trend i.e. a minimum of 50 years. Consider also I am making it easy for you by excluding the undeveloped world and oceans : constituting 80% of world’s surface. You are dreaming.

    I do not understand why almost every response I get includes personal attack. I fear that it is a symptom of a lobby based on religion rather than science. Or is it an American trait ?

    Lee: Vikings colonized at a particularly warm period in Greenland history.Wow! Natural temperatures changes do occur. What a bitch.

    You know guys I have the strong indication that there are very few natural science degrees here. However, I will not stoop to the level of cross examination I have been subjected to. Please do not grovel to me about social science degrees, They do not rank.

  4. #4 sod
    April 17, 2009

    here you go: google “met office historic”. 30 seconds of work, 25+ stations covering Britain over 50 years.



    no, i am not going to do work for you. any reasonable person will immediately see, how easy it is to get temperature for those grid cells.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2009

    “You know guys I have the strong indication that there are very few natural science degrees here”.

    Given your short scientific history, what is this supposed to mean? Besides, I do have degrees in science – I have a PhD in population and evolutionary ecology, and in the past 16 years I have 88 publications in the peer-reviewed literature. Given your statement, how many publications have you accrued thus far? What is your background in climate science?

    And you know what Michael? You are wrong on just about everything you write here. Sod and Lee are clearly much better informed on the subject of climate science than you appear to be. The Greenland-warmth myth has been debunked a million times yet is a mainstay of the denialists.

  6. #6 Roger Jones
    April 17, 2009

    Dear Michael Carter,

    I’m afraid that most of your assertions on climate are incorrect and the topics are well covered in the literature.

    This does not detract from your day job, which is admirable. I recommend reading several of the IPCC reports and some of the text-book material on natural and human-induced climate if you have the time.

    You have also bitten the bullet on some of your philosophical points. Truth is a metaphysical, not a scientific concept. You are discounting policy on the basis of a flawed scientific understanding. Fine – object to the policy if you like, but don’t mangle the science to make your argument.

    By the way, I wasn’t polled, but must must be part of the 97%


    Professor Roger Jones
    B Sc Hons in Earth Science
    Ph D in Palaeoclimatology
    Co-ordinating Lead Author in IPCC AR4
    Oh, and I got an A in 3rd year Sedimentology

  7. #7 P. Lewis
    April 17, 2009

    Well, that’s telling him Professor Jones, and mighty courteously done to boot.

    And I see he raised the well-known canard of volcanic emissions up page. Well, see what the BGS has to say on the matter.* The summary page (p. iii) should suffice.

    *This will initiate the download dialog of the BGS’s Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle, Sustainable and Renewable Energy Occasional Publication No. 10, by Vicky Hards.

  8. #8 guthrie
    April 17, 2009

    Yes yes, all those evil arts students like myself, with my BSc (Hons) in chemistry, MSc in materials, and working in an insulation manufacturing company (Where I deal with contamination, material properties and improvements thereof) must be ganging up on you.

  9. #9 Michael Carter
    April 17, 2009

    Thanks for that guys. Maybe now we can revert to a meaningful discussion.

    The Truth; an interesting concept. I put my finger into boiling water and it scolds; a metaphysical truth? The worlds climate will either warm or cool over the next century; hypothetical?

    So what is the driving force behind this great global controversy? On one hand we have what appears to be a reaction against “Right wing denialists” and on the other a reaction against what is seen to be a premature knee-jerk reaction by policy makers and “ left wing forces with political agendas” Hence the passion. I do question that the majority of those involved in the debate a truly interested in establishing the truth. In most cases contributors are making a stand based on reaction. I admit much of my own motivation is driven by a deep concern over the official politicising of the subject. Who can blame me for being sceptical when I learn of such events as my own country has officially gone from a carbon deficit to a credit in one year? How does one accurately calculate carbon status? E.g. only recently have scientists started to become aware of extent of the carbon sink in agricultural soils. We know shit! This weeks Economist has an article on how some researchers have detected farms growing biofuels are producing nitrous oxides (a greenhouse gas) Yet communities are being taxed based on guesstamits. Farmers are being subsidised to produce biofuels. This is ecology at work; pull one string and it affects another hundred. The war arena from which I have just returned is apparently the “First climate change war” This decree from experts who have not even been there. Many have not even worked outside of their own country.

    Both parties are guilty of extracting data from the extreme ends of the bell-curve. This is not helpful and can only result in the endless claims and counter claims seen above e.g. it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that mean temperature in Greenland is higher than during Viking occupation. I simply cannot believe such claims are based on good science. Where is the data from The Viking era? Unfortunately such dogmatic statements are going to result in scepticism from those who believe in, and try to work within the scientific method. Such a statement worded “Current knowledge indicates the mean temperature in Greenland is probably higher than during he Viking occupation” I would expect that anyone truly interested in the issue would want to investigate further, myself included. A dogmatic statement will usually result in scepticism and be ignored. Should the responses I have received have included such words as “should” “probably” “indicates” “likely” “ I could take them seriously.
    Interestingly, I decided to do more investigation on mean sea level temperatures around my own country. I went to our NIWA. (National Institute of Water and Atmosphere) They had two web pages that attracted me. One related to mean marine temperatures over time, and the other to paleoatmospheric studies within Antarctica ice cores. The results page for marine temperatures is blank and the ice core analysis page says only “more accurate analysis techniques are being developed” Little alarm bells are ringing. I will ring them to ask why. Is the data not matching the paradigm? Now that would be embarrassing wouldn’t it?

    Conversely, there is an extremely detailed page on a model predicting rates and effects of global warming out to 2090. I wish I had such a crystal ball. Nowhere does this model take into account the potential influence of regulatory feed-back systems which are an essential ingredient throughout our entire ecology. Apparently a 2 degree rise in our mean temperature by 2090 is slam dunk.
    I personally need to do more research e.g. I did use the words “receding glaciers” in relation to the Viking settlements. I should be more careful. In spite of potential for scepticism I will pass on that I am also a sheep farmer. I know the necessary conditions to support sheep in an environment like Greenland. Depending on the number of sheep, substantial grassland is required during summer months. I have also spent time on an Iceland farm which runs 600 sheep. My wife was there for 12 months. I am going to make contact and ask about the “increased hay cuts”. I will also do specific research regarding the Viking settlements. I am especially interested to know the current grassland status during summer months.
    Finally (should anyone still be reading this contribution) I would point out that I have denied nothing in my contributions. I have only expressed a concern over the robustness of concrete conclusions driving what is potentially the most significant paradigm in world history. A paradigm that still has the potential to be significantly inaccurate. Truth does exist. Our opinions will not change the ultimate truth. I have admitted that “I may be wrong” I do not see such in the responses. Until such an attitude is expressed I cannot take these seriously.
    Once, at a conference, a highly regarded scientist was asked “In your opion ……….” The enquirer was cut short by the scientist; “I do not have an opinion”
    If one does not understand the significance of such a statement they do not understand the scientific method. I too must continually remind myself of the message in that profound statement. I will also research numbers and distribution of British met stations. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome the result will be insignicant as Britain is such a tiny spec on the globe, just as US data is of minimul contribution, given its relative size. Nothing I have read or researched has changed my belief that the current ‘climate change’ paradigm is based on poor science i.e. extracting data to fit the theory; the ultimate crime.


  10. #10 Michael Carter
    April 17, 2009

    I have decided to terminate my contributions to this blog.

    Before I go I will make a prediction: within the next 50 years Earth’s climate will be seen to be stable. The influence of ‘green house gases’ will be considered to be negelagble There is 30% chance the climate will cool. I expect to live for another 20 years, However, if I am correct in my prediction I will witness the early signs.

    I may be wrong


  11. #11 yonason
    December 16, 2009

    “I’m guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said “no”.”

    Let’s see, 97+2=100. Yep, it works for me. //sarc=off//

  12. #12 Bud
    December 16, 2009

    No, but 75+2=77. That works better. And 75/77 = 97%.

    Sarcasm is a horrible thing, always coming back and biting you on the arse.

    Glad you stopped by. 🙂

  13. #13 yonason
    December 16, 2009

    “75+2=77. That works better. And 75/77 = 97%.”

    Yeah, I know, but it’s funnier the other way. And it’s going to get a whole lot “funnier” with all that egg that will be over all those faces when they have to fess up that they were wrong. Reality has a very large bite, you see.

    “nothing to see here”, “…or here

    I also can’t wait to find out who those “climate scientists” really were.

  14. #14 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    For yonason, “reality” is “blog science”. It gives more prefered results to fact-checked science.

    Yonason, can you get blog science to make this warming go away?

    < http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/TLRetal-NaturePublished.pdf>

    < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html>

    < http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/17/global-warming-strains-at-species-interactions/>

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Yeah, I know, but it’s funnier the other way.

    Sure. If you say so. You have a gift that keeps on giving.

  16. #16 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    jakerman | December 16, 2009 7:48 AM

    LOL! Good one. A proof from species. Wow. That’s really solid. Nothing ELSE could account for those anecdotal observations. Puh-LEEEEEZ! LOLOLOL!

    There has to be warming first, before you talk about what it is doing to species. Then, you have to establish the warming WOULD do that to the species in question. Then you have to eliminate anything else that could cause it. None of which they have done. I don’t know where they got their “advanced” degrees, but I have my suspicions.

    Go and look at the links I gave in my last post, where they compare the output of the pirates at CRU, and the real raw data. They turned a cooling into a warming. THEY LIED!

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    December 20, 2009


    They turned a cooling into a warming.

    What cooling?

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    Wake up and look at the thermometers.

  18. #18 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    I repeat. First there has to BE a warming. And there isn’t.


    And, for those of you who want to know what they are REALLY up to, listen carefully.

    You should listen to 1 through 3, also. It’s not pretty, but one needs to know.

  19. #19 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    Chris O’Neill | December 20, 2009 5:20 AM

    “Wake up and look at the thermometers.”

    I have. Now you can, too.

    Russians say that CRU lied about the data.

    Most American temp stations are in “heat islands” and are badly set up, to boot.

    And, finally, 450 peer reviewed “skeptic” papers.

    If the planet is warming, it’s entirely natural, with any contribution from man now, or in the future, insignificant when compared to natural changes. Really.

  20. #20 Marco
    December 20, 2009

    WUWT as the source is…erm…not really convincing.

    I do have a challenge to you:
    Select about 10 papers in the list of 450 ‘skeptical’ papers from mainstream journals (that means: not papers in E&E). Read them, and then tell us why *you* think those papers are ‘skeptical’ of AGW. Don’t be too disturbed if you find them to be a whole lot let ‘skeptical’ than you think.

    Just so you know, there is at least one paper that has two possible interpretations:
    1. Based on known CO2 sensitivity, there are more forcings required to explain the temperature rise of some interglacials
    2. CO2 sensitivity is much higher than we think.
    Very ‘skeptical’ of AGW, indeed…

  21. #21 jakerman
    December 20, 2009

    Wow, yonason give non-fact-checked web science that he apparently believe over turns rigorous science.

    Then overturns more science with cleaver terms such as:

    >LOL! Good one. A proof from species. Wow. That’s really solid. Nothing ELSE could account for those anecdotal observations. Puh-LEEEEEZ! LOLOLOL!

    You’ve turned me yonason!


    Just kidding, no I’ll stick with the peer reivew ahead of your blog cherry picks. And when Watts’ 450 so called “skeptical” papers contain many that I know to be non-contrarian, I know he hasn’t put a credible list together.

    Just like [Watts failed](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html) to demonstrate the UHI made a significant difference to temperature anomalies.

    Oh And BTW, [it is warming](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:360/trend) you are just cherry picking from dodgy sites.

  22. #22 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    jakerman | December 20, 2009 6:56 AM

    Non-fact-checked web science? What, you mean like “Sceptical Science.” That’s really funny, jak.

    Even a sixth grader can debunk them.

    CRU has perverted peer review and faked their results, and yet you believe them over reports from sites that are consistently reliable? Sorry, jak, you fail the credibility test.

    Gotta go. I’ll be back later when the my last post addressing Marco’s mysterious musings is approved (too many references, apparently).

  23. #23 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    Oh, and you don’t like the report from WUWT? How’s the Russian newspaper?

    “Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory”

    And then, there’s always the horse’s mouth, the IEA itself.

  24. #24 jakerman
    December 20, 2009


    I didn’t see how the NOAA study comparing Watts’ so called good and bad sites was debunked. Can you explain how you think your linked youtube presentation debunked the NOAA report? Or do you normally reply with random videos, and asset a debunking?

    If you were reluctant to read the findings on which skeptical science reported, [try these hightlights](http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/) in a video format. A video that Watts tried to shut down.

  25. #25 jakerman
    December 20, 2009

    Yonason, try to keep up, your sources continue to let you down. IEA (Russian anit science rightwing lobby tank) have [not got the evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php) they lead you to believe. But that’s to be expected from denialist, always promising so much, always failing to deliver.

    Yoni, I suggest you find some better sources.

  26. #26 Chris O'Neill
    December 20, 2009


    Russians say that CRU lied about the data.

    Why don’t you at least post your bullshit to the correct thread on deltoid, i.e. Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures or at least read that thread first so you will find out that you are posting bullshit?

    Most American temp stations are in “heat islands” and are badly set up, to boot.

    Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst.

    And, finally, 450 peer reviewed “skeptic” papers.

    In this case, “peer” means as biassed and incompetent as the authors in non-scientific journals, e.g. Energy & Environment.


    Yeah, that makes me believe you.

  27. #27 yonason
    December 20, 2009

    Chris O’Neill | December 20, 2009 7:52 AM

    “Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst.”

    Not Tomino?! It is to laugh.

    (Just checking to see if my post has been dug out of spam yet, the one that show a random sampling of “skeptic” papers really are, contrary to what Marco asserted). It’s not, so I’m outa here.

    I’m pretty much done though. I see I’m not going to get anywhere here, so much more would be a waste of all our time.


  28. #28 Dano
    December 20, 2009

    The ‘450 papers’ assertion is as dim-bulb as the OISM ‘petition’. Anyone trotting that one out can be safely and immediately ignored.



  29. #29 luminous beauty
    December 20, 2009


    JeffId lies like a pig in his own shit. He performs a fraudulent bait and switch by redefining ‘noise’ as the measurement error between different data sets, when it is plain tamino is referring to the uncertainty due to variability in each data set.

    All Id[iot] is calculating is how little the different series disagree, which has absolutely nothing to do with the statistical significance of ‘noisy’, i.e. ‘highly variable’ short time series.

    Now, being incompetent to discern such a blatant fraud, and falling unskeptically for such a facile misrepresentation of fact, how dumb does that make you?

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    December 20, 2009

    yonason quoting:

    “Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst.”

    And your Jeff Id is even worse. That ignorant idiot thinks the only type of noise is measurement error! Even as an electronics engineer I have news for him but no doubt he wants to remain ignorant. Even the first response to his post said:

    Noise in climate science is weather – not measurement error.

    Weather includes seasonal variations and events like El Ninos and La Ninas.

    ARMA is an attempt to model weather noise.

    I suggest you read through lucia’s blog if you want to find out more about modelling weather noise.

    With Jeff Id as your authority, no wonder you’re so ignorant.

    I’m pretty much done though.

    Get lost troll. You’re an arrogant ignoramus.

  31. #31 nnnnn
    March 22, 2010

    What might happen if the scientists who claim global climate change is a result of human activity are wrong, and we take unnecessary steps to correct the problem?

  32. #32 John
    March 22, 2010

    In that case nnnnn the survivors will envy the dead.

  33. #33 Tom Black
    April 3, 2010

    This survey is used by alarmists to deceive the reader.
    It’s used in articles and in blogs constantly

    The figure of 97% is referring to 75 out of 77 climate scientists, which is a tiny tiny tiny portion of the planets earth scientists, basically insignificant.

    The 3146 scientists surveyed is also a tiny tiny portion of the plants earth scientists, not a significant number to prove a consensus.

    The survey consisted of 90% US, 6% Canadian and 4% the rest of the world, hardly a world class survey.

    Yet you see this figure thrown about all the time, in headlines such as “97% of the world’s scientists…”
    Bloggers use it in comments to skeptics, such as “well then why do 97% of all scientists agree…”

    Even a grade school child could see this survey does not represent 97% of the world’s climate scientists.
    When this is used in articles and blogs it makes me suspect of anything else that is written.

  34. #34 stepanovich
    April 3, 2010

    Shorter Tom Black:

    If Doran and Zimmermann sent their questionnaire to 10,257 earth scientists, and only 3,146 responded, then clearly the remaining 10,257 – 3,146 are actually secret skeptics being silenced by the Vast Evil Warmist Inquisition! Therefore, from now on I’ll ignore everything written by warmists!

  35. #35 Erasmussimo
    April 3, 2010

    Tom, it’s true that the survey doesn’t prove anything. But it does provide us with a great deal of useful information; I think that we cannot dismiss it out of hand. Rather, I think that it provides us with one gauge of the way climatologists think. An even better gauge, though, is the National Academy of Sciences, consisting of the elite of American science, and its publications flatly declare AGW to constitute a significant threat.

  36. #36 cce
    April 3, 2010

    That’s 77 active climate scientists. That means they are actually conducting science. By comparison, the Oregon Petition has been collecting signatures for a decade, and has only managed to collect 40 signatures of climatologists. Given the prevalence of dead and “emeritus” scientists on that list, I’d wager that a lot of them aren’t doing much science.

    Surveys have found that about 80% of generic scientists and earth scientists believe in AGW. Doran and Zimmermann (above) found this as did a Pew/AAAS survey. That’s also what you get when you parse Jim Prall’s lists of “activist” and “skeptic” scientists.

    Doran and Zimmerman is noteworthy because they found that the more active a scientist is in the field, the more likely they are to believe AGW.


  37. #37 Bernard J.
    April 19, 2010

    [Tom Black](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php#comment-2399672) has obviously not studied statistical practice, or he’d understand the power of ‘sampling’. Only a person ignorant of statistical basics would make such a comment: either that, or a raging conspiracy theorist whose head is wrapped in foil…

    And Tim, can we lose the dweeb with the finger stuck on the exclamation button?

  38. #38 Brittany
    May 17, 2011

    I feel that shit is bogas….cause i hate when motherfuckers just act stupid and they contiue to use awe this damn gas and oil n all de extra bullish!!!!!

  39. #39 JW Nicho
    June 13, 2011

    Can someone tell me why 99% of scientist agree on global warming but seem to be split down the middle on whether “Bacon” is bad for me or not…..I need to lose some weight.

  40. #40 dhogaza
    June 13, 2011

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.